Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Atheists, call Matt Slick!

Matt Slick has a radio show that's on weekdays from 5 to 6 PM mountain time.

If you think you have good arguments against his position or you think that you can prove his position to be unjustified, then you should be able to refute him on the air. He has lost debates on his own show before, so you have no excuse.

And let's assume that he does cut you off, hang up on you, and so forth; wouldn't that just make him look bad? And let's say that Christians will act like sheep and not acknowledge your victory; what do you care?

If any atheists here have a spine, then please call in. You can discuss his TAG argument, cosmological argument, or arguments from the Bible. Here's the website:

The reason that I love live debate is that it doesn't permit atheists to Google search their answers or work behind the scenes with one another. And there's also no chance of 10 different atheists jumping in the debate in an effort to gang up on the theist.

Just a classic one on one, where the two interlocutors must come prepared and know ahead of time what they're talking about.

A debate on this kind of forum allows time for each side to assemble the best evidence they can find, and put it together as clearly and carefully as possible, so the argument is not affected by anyone already having had time and practice to overwhelm the other with pre-assembled reponses and challenges.

If you want a discussion where only the substance of the arguments should count, not the speed with which they can be delivered and responded to, this is the way to go.

This demand that we be able to 'think on our feet' against a practised professional in verbal 'debates/ reveals either a deep dishonesty, or stupidity in failing to recognize this.

But what can you expect from someone who not only believes in God but thinks the Ontological Argument is logical and persuasive...

You previously failed to address or even grasp my arguments, resorting to denigration, insults and abuse, so you can take your stupid demands and shove them where the sun don't shine, Mr_M.

The reason that I love live debate is that it doesn't permit atheists to Google search their answers or work behind the scenes with one another. And there's also no chance of 10 different atheists jumping in the debate in an effort to gang up on the theist.

Just a classic one on one, where the two interlocutors must come prepared and know ahead of time what they're talking about.

Call in!

YEC Christians often make claims which contradict the facts of geology, evolutionary biology, archeology, etc. Even an idiot can make an intuitively sounding claim about science, but refuting it may take a real expert in the field. Inviting uncle Google into the discussion makes it fair: i.e. terribly unfavorable for unfounded claims.

But if you want a pure discussion without Google, then you must resort to various philosophical arguments, which go like, there is a god, therefore there is a god.

A debate on this kind of forum allows time for each side to assemble the best evidence they can find, and put it together as clearly and carefully as possible, so the argument is not affected by anyone already having had time and practice to overwhelm the other with pre-assembled reponses and challenges.

If you want a discussion where only the substance of the arguments should count, not the speed with which they can be delivered and responded to, this is the way to go.

This demand that we be able to 'think on our feet' against a practised professional in verbal 'debates/ reveals either a deep dishonesty, or stupidity in failing to recognize this.

But what can you expect from someone who not only believes in God but thinks the Ontological Argument is logical and persuasive...

You previously failed to address or even grasp my arguments, resorting to denigration, insults and abuse, so you can take your stupid demands and shove them where the sun don't shine, Mr_M.

There is nothing preventing you from assembling your evidence, putting it together clearly, and then calling into his show when you are ready. You are also free to practice and come up with your own pre-assembled responses and challenges.

The point is, you have to know what you're talking about before you engage in the debate. But you wouldn't like that. You'd rather debate on a forum, where you're able to take 3 hour breaks in between dialogues so that you can make up for the fact that you didn't properly do your homework ahead of time. On a forum, it is easier to make it appear as if you know what you're talking about; for instance, if I debate a proponent of evolution and he brings up things that I've never studied, debating on a forum would allow me to go offline for 3 hours between responses and Google search responses said by other people. Then I could paste those responses and make it appear to onlookers that I was somehow prepared to engage in the debate.

Live debate is a good way to tell who has genuinely done their research. Also, bear in mind that Mr. Slick in fact has no clue what his callers are going to talk about prior to his show. So, it actually is him who's at the disadvantage--not you. You can prepare; he can't.

The ontological argument is deductively valid, and there are good reasons for accepting the premises. I don't expect it to be persuasive because atheists like yourself do not want God to exist.

The reason that I love live debate is that it doesn't permit atheists to Google search their answers or work behind the scenes with one another. And there's also no chance of 10 different atheists jumping in the debate in an effort to gang up on the theist.

Just a classic one on one, where the two interlocutors must come prepared and know ahead of time what they're talking about.

Call in!

YEC Christians often make claims which contradict the facts of geology, evolutionary biology, archeology, etc. Even an idiot can make an intuitively sounding claim about science, but refuting it may take a real expert in the field. Inviting uncle Google into the discussion makes it fair: i.e. terribly unfavorable for unfounded claims.

But if you want a pure discussion without Google, then you must resort to various philosophical arguments, which go like, there is a god, therefore there is a god.

You can do all the Google searching you'd like. Just do it before the debate.

When Kelly debated Matt Slick, she receiving on-air coaching from Sapient. He actually jumped in and attempted to rescue her from the humiliation she was receiving. Had the debate not been live, she may have been able to fool us into believing that she was actually prepared to take on a real Christian apologist (and not some lightweight like Ray Comfort).

You can do all the Google searching you'd like. Just do it before the debate.

When Kelly debated Matt Slick, she receiving on-air coaching from Sapient. He actually jumped in and attempted to rescue her from the humiliation she was receiving. Had the debate not been live, she may have been able to fool us into believing that she was actually prepared to take on a real Christian apologist (and not some lightweight like Ray Comfort).

All right, can the Christian debaters provide all of their planned arguments or claims in advance, that the atheists can read up on them? Refusing to comment on some claim because "it wasn't in the list" sounds pretty lame on-air.

And I wouldn't rely upon promises, there are also Christian liars. For example, in the debate of Way of the Master (Ray Comfort) with RRS Kirk Cameron deliberately quote-mined Richard Dawkins. And it's hard to prove the truth, unless there is that particular book on the debate table and know where the original passage is.

I don't really know what the debate was about, I have yet to listen to it.AFAIK, the debate with Matt Slick went into some historical stuff like evidence for the existence of Alexander the Great, which I guess is Rook's specialty, not Kelly's. RRS must cover not only history, but also biology, geology, astrophysics and more, to counter all the claims. Empty claims should be met with empty ridicule, but in a serious discussion the opposite side can only met them with actual facts. This is why RRS is a team, one person really can't know everything.

All right, can the Christian debaters provide all of their planned arguments or claims in advance, that the atheists can read up on them? Refusing to comment on some claim because "it wasn't in the list" sounds pretty lame on-air.

Generally, Slick has no clue who is going to call in or what the topic will be. But if you'd like (since you seem to be stepping up to the plate here), you can e-mail Slick ahead of time and tell him that you'd like to debate him live on his radio show. You can pick the topic and read his arguments on CARM.org, and you can send him your argument over e-mail. Then you can discuss it on the show for everyone's entertainment.

Well, I watched his show once just to see what the big deal with him is. In fact, he spent about three quarters of the show listing all the occurrences of the trinity in the OT. So if he is so damned smart, then why does he not know that the trinity was a compromise in order to unite the early church in the fourth century?

Also significant was the fact that he was sitting in front of a monitor the whole time. However, we can't see what he is seeing on it. For all we know, he may well have a staff team in the next room doing his googling for him. Even if that is not the case, it is fairly dishonest to create the impression that something like that could be going on.

In any case, I am not really interested in tired bits of philosophy that were fully refuted decades or centuries ago.

I tell you what, if you can, invite Matt Slick over here. I will set up a one on one for anyone he chooses to take on. As BobSpence correctly points out, the advantage of being able to google for responses works for him every bit as much as it works for the rest of us. Hell but I will take him on myself if he is willing to talk about physics. I don't need much googling to talk about that.

Well, I watched his show once just to see what the big deal with him is. In fact, he spent about three quarters of the show listing all the occurrences of the trinity in the OT. So if he is so damned smart, then why does he not know that the trinity was a compromise in order to unite the early church in the fourth century?

Call him up and debate him on the issue.

Quote:

Also significant was the fact that he was sitting in front of a monitor the whole time. However, we can't see what he is seeing on it. For all we know, he may well have a staff team in the next room doing his googling for him. Even if that is not the case, it is fairly dishonest to create the impression that something like that could be going on.

It's only him and one other person in that little studio in Idaho. And that other person is too busy screening phone calls.

Quote:

In any case, I am not really interested in tired bits of philosophy that were fully refuted decades or centuries ago.

Then it should be easy for you to refute him, shouldn't it?

Quote:

I tell you what, if you can, invite Matt Slick over here. I will set up a one on one for anyone he chooses to take on. As BobSpence correctly points out, the advantage of being able to google for responses works for him every bit as much as it works for the rest of us. Hell but I will take him on myself if he is willing to talk about physics. I don't need much googling to talk about that.

To have any chance of getting someone like Matt Slick to even grasp my arguments, I would have to get him up to speed on a lot of Science, because even solid rebuttals of the errors and misunderstandings of reality that someone like that has are wasted on him when he has nothing like the background of knowledge that my arguments would be based on.

That just ain't possible in this context, in any reasonable time period. Are you gonna send him on some serious courses in Physics and Biology, for a start? Would he be even capable or willing to learn that stuff? Otherwise there is simply no point.

The fallacy of casting doubt on my position if I am not willing or able to try and get any moderately subtle or complex point across in a limited time period still stands.

The whole reason why the Bible contains so many simplistic and primitive ideas that have long been refuted by more serious and developed studies is because those naive ideas about the nature of both the spiritual and physical universe are the easiest ones to grasp, among the first ones that occurred to people.

Are you some sort of shill for this nutter, that you keep trying to persuade us to go on his show?

All right, can the Christian debaters provide all of their planned arguments or claims in advance, that the atheists can read up on them? Refusing to comment on some claim because "it wasn't in the list" sounds pretty lame on-air.

Generally, Slick has no clue who is going to call in or what the topic will be. But if you'd like (since you seem to be stepping up to the plate here), you can e-mail Slick ahead of time and tell him that you'd like to debate him live on his radio show. You can pick the topic and read his arguments on CARM.org, and you can send him your argument over e-mail. Then you can discuss it on the show for everyone's entertainment.

You game?

The problem with Slick seems to be, that he contradicts science. So I point out, "hey man, you just contradicted the findings of neurology." And he says, "and what if neurology is wrong about that?" And I have to answer, "then you must study neurology to see it's true." But that's not good enough for him, "hey, you didn't provide any rebuttal!" So I say, "Look, I'm not expert in neurology either, but I'm pretty sure it has way better answers than that it was done by a magical fairy man who likes to watch our souls stewing in a lake of sulfur and fire."

I heard him, he uses this "what if science is wrong" argument to derail the debate and it takes a lot of real science to answer him. Which is very diffcult on live debate. And even if there is an expert to respond properly, chances are that he won't understand the science and neither will the audience. He is interested only in his middle-eastern creator of the universe, not how it was really and exactly.

Again, you would like that because then there is no possibility of you getting stumped. If he has something for which you are unprepared, you can go offline for several hours and work behind the scenes with other atheists to get an answer. That's just cheap.

And typically, such text debates would degenerate into thousands upon thousands of words to the point where they are virtually unreadable.

The problem with Slick seems to be, that he contradicts science. So I point out, "hey man, you just contradicted the findings of neurology." And he says, "and what if neurology is wrong about that?" And I have to answer, "then you must study neurology to see it's true." But that's not good enough for him, "hey, you didn't provide any rebuttal!" So I say, "Look, I'm not expert in neurology either, but I'm pretty sure it has way better answers than that it was done by a magical fairy man who likes to watch our souls stewing in a lake of sulfur and fire."

I heard him, he uses this "what if science is wrong" argument to derail the debate and it takes a lot of real science to answer him. Which is very diffcult on live debate. And even if there is an expert to respond properly, chances are that he won't understand the science and neither will the audience. He is interested only in his middle-eastern creator of the universe, not how it was really and exactly.

If he uses that argument, then he will be the one looking bad and you will come out smelling like a rose. Creationists already think you're stupid; why do you care if they believe that Slick wins the argument?

Would you be willing to debate someone like William Lane Craig, who would agree with 99% of the findings of contemporary scientists?

To have any chance of getting someone like Matt Slick to even grasp my arguments, I would have to get him up to speed on a lot of Science, because even solid rebuttals of the errors and misunderstandings of reality that someone like that has are wasted on him when he has nothing like the background of knowledge that my arguments would be based on.

Let's say that you call in and he doesn't grasp your arguments; he's going to come out looking bad. Those who do grasp your arguments will see that you've won the debate. Those who already do not will think you've lost, but they already think you're an idiot; so what do you care?

Quote:

Are you some sort of shill for this nutter, that you keep trying to persuade us to go on his show?

I'm not aware of any other call-in shows featuring Christian apologists, and Matt Slick is quite good at debating atheists.

I want you guys to call in because I know it to be true that 99% of you have no clue what you're talking about, and I know that in a real debate with a Christian apologist you would get humiliated. I'm hoping that the experience will get other people on the fence to realize that Christianity is intellectually tenable, and also that you will be humbled to the point that you reconsider the position.

It's already clear why you don't want him in a 1 on 1 on a forum, where it's a level playing field...lol

Because he'll embarrass himself, like he did when people took his posted bunk TAG argument, and refuted it easily.

How is it a level playing field? This is a forum run by atheists, the moderators of which are able to alter the content of any post as they see fit. Furthermore, you could work behind the scenes with other atheists in PM and about 10 different atheists could jump into the debate to help you out. That's a level playing field? HA!

The truth is, though, you are not difficult to defeat. I've already defeated you.

If he uses that argument, then he will be the one looking bad and you will come out smelling like a rose. Creationists already think you're stupid; why do you care if they believe that Slick wins the argument?

There are so many creationists, that they can propel bronze age fairy tale laws into schools and government by sheer force of wind created by waving slogan banners. Winning in front of a small group of intellectuals does not matter in democracy, where all people, smart and dumb have just one vote. And president's brother owns the voting machine production company.It didn't work with Kelly. Matt Slick repeated all the time "how do you know that?" so she had to talk about the obvious facts, that religion is passed from parents to children through unquestioned indoctrination and so on. The result is, Matt Slick displays his huge ignorance, but with his relaxed voice it sounds almost like he's doubting the mindless, never-examined scientific dogma.

No wonder he's relaxed. He does not have to make a scientific lecture over the phone, like Kelly had to do. He is not concerned with facts. All he needs to do is to shove out of his way the claimant's burden of proof and repeat "how do you know that?" What he means is "la la la la I can't hear you!"

The problem is, his audience, which mostly Christian (except of a few perversely fascinated atheists) do not weigh facts. They compare the sound of his calm, relaxed voice and Kelly's frustrated, lengthty explanations. (which is pretty much what you heard too) This is why Matt Slick wins, not by what he says, but how he says it. If atheists want to win in the eyes of Christians, they must KISS the debate, (keep it simple stupid) for example in the style of Normal Bob Smith. Of course, Christians will say in return that it is not a fair, serious discussion. Well, first they must show that they deserve one. (consistent claims, anyone?)

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Would you be willing to debate someone like William Lane Craig, who would agree with 99% of the findings of contemporary scientists?

I'm an european guy, so it's probably not possible. But you made me curious about him. I'll take a look on what makes him tick. Usually people like that, who have both science and Christianity are based on personal experience and so they do not have any right to persuade other people.

There are so many creationists, that they can propel bronze age fairy tale laws into schools and government by sheer force of wind created by waving slogan banners. Winning in front of a small group of intellectuals does not matter in democracy, where all people, smart and dumb have just one vote. And president's brother owns the voting machine production company.

Blah blah blah. Excuses excuses excuses. The bottom line is, you do not want to debate him because you know that you cannot win the debate. You will get stumped, backed into a corner, and you will be exposed for not properly doing your research. Have you ever read anything by Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne, Charles Hartshorne, Norman Malcolm, and Paul Tillich? Or do you just presume that Christians consist of nothing more than just a bunch of fundamentalists who hate science?

Why not debate him on a separate issue? For instance, the TAG argument has nothing to do with science. You don't even have to debate scientific issues.

Quote:

It didn't work with Kelly. Matt Slick repeated all the time "how do you know that?" so she had to talk about the obvious facts, that religion is passed from parents to children through unquestioned indoctrination and so on. The result is, Matt Slick displays his huge ignorance, but with his relaxed voice it sounds almost like he's doubting the mindless, never-examined scientific dogma.

Kelly said "There is no evidence for God." Matt Slick asked, "How do you know that?" It was a perfectly legitimate question.

Kelly said "People are born atheists." Matt Slick asked, "How do you know that?" It was a perfectly legitimate question.

Slick was merely pointing out that Kelly had nothing to offer but unwarranted assumptions and subjectivity, and that she presented no compelling case for atheism or the rejection of theism. At one point, Sapient had to jump in and try to save her.

When atheists make unwarranted assertions, it is fine to ask what their justification is for the claim. It is not an "obvious fact" that everyone is born atheist; we may have an inherent predisposition towards God belief--you really do not know. Are you claiming that nobody ever actually chooses to be Christian? I can use myself as an example to disprove that; in fact, I used to think just like you did until I actually began doing research.

Quote:

No wonder he's relaxed. He does not have to make a scientific lecture over the phone, like Kelly had to do. He is not concerned with facts. All he needs to do is to shove the claimant's burden of proof out of his way and repeat "how do you know that?" What he means is "la la la la I can't hear you!"

What scientific evidence do you think Kelly presented? The fact that different religions exist is scientific evidence that people are born atheist? The fact that physical events in the brain happen at the same time people express love is scientific evidence that love is identical to these things? Is that what you consider scientific evidence? And why is that even pertinent when the whole premise of Matt's argument is that the God issue is not scientific at all and requires a different criteria by which one judges whether it's true that he exists?

You really don't seem to be anymore sophisticated than she is, so it doesn't surprise me that you do not want to debate him. In fact, looking at your photograph, my guess is that you are not a scientist; rather, you played one when you were an extra on Revenge of the Nerds.

Quote:

I'm an european guy, so it's probably not possible. But you made me curious about him. I'll take a look on what makes him tick. Usually people like that, who have both science and Christianity are based on personal experience and so they do not have any right to persuade other people.

If you do not know who William Lane Craig is, then you really have no credibility in this discussion.

Blah blah blah. Excuses excuses excuses. The bottom line is, you do not want to debate him because you know that you cannot win the debate. You will get stumped, backed into a corner, and you will be exposed for not properly doing your research. Have you ever read anything by Alvin Plantinga, William Lane Craig, Richard Swinburne, Charles Hartshorne, Norman Malcolm, and Paul Tillich? Or do you just presume that Christians consist of nothing more than just a bunch of fundamentalists who hate science?

Why not debate him on a separate issue? For instance, the TAG argument has nothing to do with science. You don't even have to debate scientific issues.

The real question is, can anyone win a debate against "yadda yadda yadda, I can't hear you" ? Btw, to disprove TAG I can just quote several passages from Old Testament, where Yahweh acts immorally, illogically and unscientifically. Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Genesis... But not even that has any power against "I can't hear you, I'm busy believing".

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Kelly said "There is no evidence for God." Matt Slick asked, "How do you know that?" It was a perfectly legitimate question.

Kelly said "People are born atheists." Matt Slick asked, "How do you know that?" It was a perfectly legitimate question.

Slick was merely pointing out that Kelly had nothing to offer but unwarranted assumptions and subjectivity, and that she presented no compelling case for atheism or the rejection of theism. At one point, Sapient had to jump in and try to save her.

When atheists make unwarranted assertions, it is fine to ask what their justification is for the claim. It is not an "obvious fact" that everyone is born atheist; we may have an inherent predisposition towards God belief--you really do not know. Are you claiming that nobody ever actually chooses to be Christian? I can use myself as an example to disprove that; in fact, I used to think just like you did until I actually began doing research.

Firstly, how do we know that? Because evidence for God can be tested and disproven if the test fails. If there would be such evidence, there would not be multiple faiths in different gods, all equally unprovable. This is the meaning of evidence.

Secondly, are there any Christian-born children in families of Muslims, Hindus and Jews? Is Yahweh or Jesus the first baby's word, instead of mommy, mutti, mére or お母さん ? If children are born believers, why do we need religious books, Sunday schools and grandmothers?

Anyone who does not know that, is ignorant. Debating Matt Slick is not a debate, it's lecturing an ignorant and stubborn infant with deep voice.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

What scientific evidence do you think Kelly presented? The fact that different religions exist is scientific evidence that people are born atheist? The fact that physical events in the brain happen at the same time people express love is scientific evidence that love is identical to these things? Is that what you consider scientific evidence? And why is that even pertinent when the whole premise of Matt's argument is that the God issue is not scientific at all and requires a different criteria by which one judges whether it's true that he exists?

Yes, that's scientific evidence. Anyone can learn how to test this evidence for yourself. This is why science is real and works. If God is not scientific, then God doesn't work. If God doesn't work, then we have no right to assume that there really is a God, no more than we can be sure of Snarfwidget and Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

You really don't seem to be anymore sophisticated than she is, so it doesn't surprise me that you do not want to debate him. In fact, looking at your photograph, my guess is that you are not a scientist; rather, you played one when you were an extra on Revenge of the Nerds.

In this case I don't have to be a scientist, not even atheist or sophisticated. All I need to do, is to watch out for internally and externally inconsistent claims. Which is easy, inconsistency is the only thing that prevents some believers from going to jail for adhering to certain Old Testament laws.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

If you do not know who William Lane Craig is, then you really have no credibility in this discussion.

Have a lovely day.

Meanwhile I have read on WLC in Rationalwiki. He really does not say anything that wasn't disproven long time ago. My favorite is his defense of God's murdering. God was right to murder adult Kanaanites, because they were sinners. And he was right to murder their babies, because they went to Heaven and that was their salvation. Does anyone else want to puke?

If that satisfies you, this month there will be an X-Camp nearby. Despite of the similar name, it won't be nearly as much fun as X-Com. But I plan to go there on semminaries and ask some questions

PS: How do you call an apologetist who claims that not all unbelievers will go to Hell? Infernally inconsistent

If he does that, you'll come out looking good. Kelly didn't end up looking good because she lost the debate, not because Matt didn't give her a fair shake.

Quote:

Btw, to disprove TAG I can just quote several passages from Old Testament, where Yahweh acts immorally, illogically and unscientifically. Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Genesis... But not even that has any power against "I can't hear you, I'm busy believing".

Debate me on the TAG issue. We can do it here.

Quote:

Firstly, how do we know that? Because evidence for God can be tested and disproven if the test fails. If there would be such evidence, there would not be multiple faiths in different gods, all equally unprovable. This is the meaning of evidence.

So your contention here is that if evidence for something exists, then it is necessarily the case that we would have that evidence at our disposal? For instance, if there is DNA evidence that someone committed a murder, it necessarily follows that someone would have that evidence?

Furthermore, what you said is false. Simply because the evidence exists does not mean that everyone is going to be persuaded by it. Proof is not the same thing as persuasion. So evidence for God is perfectly consistent with there being divergent beliefs.

Moreover, many faiths believe in the same God but believe in different things about Him, in which case there is (by your logic) evidence for God but that we may be lacking in evidence of certain things about him.

So your arguments is not even worthy of being called "bad." A third grader can put together a better argument than this. You think Kelly won the debate with this material?

Quote:

Secondly, are there any Christian-born children in families of Muslims, Hindus and Jews? Is Yahweh or Jesus the first baby's word, instead of mommy, mutti, mére or お母さん ? If children are born believers, why do we need religious books, Sunday schools and grandmothers?

Note that Matt did not say that everyone is born a Christian--in fact, he would claim the opposite. He merely contested Kelly's unwarranted claim that everyone is born atheist. Let's assume that nobody is born a Christian; how does it follow that we are all born atheists?

Are you claiming that all theists are Christians or member of some religious faith?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

What scientific evidence do you think Kelly presented? The fact that different religions exist is scientific evidence that people are born atheist? The fact that physical events in the brain happen at the same time people express love is scientific evidence that love is identical to these things? Is that what you consider scientific evidence? And why is that even pertinent when the whole premise of Matt's argument is that the God issue is not scientific at all and requires a different criteria by which one judges whether it's true that he exists?

Quote:

Yes, that's scientific evidence. Anyone can learn how to test this evidence for yourself. This is why science is real and works. If God is not scientific, then God doesn't work. If God doesn't work, then we have no right to assume that there really is a God, no more than we can be sure of Snarfwidget and Flying Spaghetti Monster.

LOL. Okay, so if my alarm clock is ringing at the same time I am drinking coffee, it must be the case that the alarm clock ringing is identical to my drinking of coffee. Brilliant argument.

Is that how science "works" according to you?

Quote:

In this case I don't have to be a scientist, not even atheist or sophisticated. All I need to do, is to watch out for internally and externally inconsistent claims. Which is easy, inconsistency is the only thing that prevents some believers from going to jail for adhering to certain Old Testament laws.

Ok. What inconsistent claims did Matt Slick make during the debate?

Quote:

Meanwhile I have read on WLC in Rationalwiki. He really does not say anything that wasn't disproven long time ago. My favorite is his defense of God's murdering. God was right to murder adult Kanaanites, because they were sinners. And he was right to murder their babies, because they went to Heaven and that was their salvation.

So you'll only read up on Christians via biased atheist websites? Why not use regular Wikipedia? At least that is somewhat neutral. But the fact that you didn't even know who WLC was really undermines your credibility here.

The evidence for thoughts and feelings of all kinds being generated by observable physical processes in the brain is of the kind that, in your example, would consist of observations that you consistently ceased to have a taste or desire for coffee if your alarm clock stopped working, and that also happened consistently with many other people tested. And your taste or desire for coffee only returned to some extent when a substitute device giving you the same 'signals' was supplied to you.

In many treatments for brain pathologies, specific parts of the brain are removed, and this is often followed by loss of some specific aspect of mental life, such as the ability to recognize faces, or perhaps the ability to 'feel' emotional reactions to many things, including even such things as the sight of a loved one. Such people can be entirely 'normal' in other areas.

Taken as a whole, the accumulation of such observations is overwhelming evidence for the brain being the organ which provides the essential physical substrate for the complex chemical and neurological process which is consciousness and self-awareness.

The evidence for thoughts and feelings of all kinds being generated by observable physical processes in the brain is of the kind that, in your example, would consist of observations that you consistently ceased to have a taste or desire for coffee if your alarm clock stopped working, and that also happened consistently with many other people tested. And your taste or desire for coffee only returned to some extent when a substitute device giving you the same 'signals' was supplied to you.

Ah, so if two things happen at the same time consistently, then it necessarily follows that they are identical?

Perhaps the physical processes in the brain are the result of love; have you ever considered that?

If this is what science is, then I will be happy to have none of it.

Quote:

Taken as a whole, the accumulation of such observations is overwhelming evidence for the brain being the organ which provides the essential physical substrate for the complex chemical and neurological process which is consciousness and self-awareness.

No, it's evidence that there's some correlation between the mind and body. What that correlation is, scientists have no idea. This is not good science at all. It is making an observation, and then making a philosophical interpretation based on the observation. We know that physical processes happen at the same time as certain mental processes; this does not prove that this necessarily requires a brain.

The evidence for thoughts and feelings of all kinds being generated by observable physical processes in the brain is of the kind that, in your example, would consist of observations that you consistently ceased to have a taste or desire for coffee if your alarm clock stopped working, and that also happened consistently with many other people tested. And your taste or desire for coffee only returned to some extent when a substitute device giving you the same 'signals' was supplied to you.

Ah, so if two things happen at the same time consistently, then it necessarily follows that they are identical?

Perhaps the physical processes in the brain are the result of love; have you ever considered that?

If this is what science is, then I will be happy to have none of it.

Quote:

Taken as a whole, the accumulation of such observations is overwhelming evidence for the brain being the organ which provides the essential physical substrate for the complex chemical and neurological process which is consciousness and self-awareness.

No, it's evidence that there's some correlation between the mind and body. What that correlation is, scientists have no idea. This is not good science at all. It is making an observation, and then making a philosophical interpretation based on the observation. We know that physical processes happen at the same time as certain mental processes; this does not prove that this necessarily requires a brain.

Dr. Dehaene is a neurological surgeon and research neurologist. Scientists do have an idea about the correlation between body and brain. They presented a physical stimulus - such as a picture or a book to read - and observed the resulting changes in the brain as the person read or viewed the stimulus. A very clear correlation between stimulus and response. Very clear as to which areas of the brain were involved in the analysis of the stimulus.

Methods used - starting years ago with epileptic patients who had electrodes implanted in their brain prior to surgery; PET and SPECT; fMRI and MRI; CAT or CT; aMEG; TMS; and the list keeps growing. A stimulus is presented and then the brain changes in response.

Dr. Dehaene is a neurological surgeon and research neurologist. Scientists do have an idea about the correlation between body and brain.

We're not talking about the body and the brain. We're talking about the correlation between mental states and physical states, or the mind and body. Whether the mind is the brain is the philosophical question here. Of course changes in the brain correspond with changes in the body.

Seriously, please stop trying to get involved in my discussions. You just continually make a fool of yourself.

The evidence for thoughts and feelings of all kinds being generated by observable physical processes in the brain is of the kind that, in your example, would consist of observations that you consistently ceased to have a taste or desire for coffee if your alarm clock stopped working, and that also happened consistently with many other people tested. And your taste or desire for coffee only returned to some extent when a substitute device giving you the same 'signals' was supplied to you.

Ah, so if two things happen at the same time consistently, then it necessarily follows that they are identical?

That is not what I said. The initial observation suggests they are correlated, not 'identical'. And it is true that they are indeed correlated, even in your original example.

I didn't remotely claim they were 'identical', just correlated, suggesting some causal link.

Further tests and observations, such as I outlined in very preliminary form, can point to the direction and degree of causality. This is the honest approach.

Quote:

Perhaps the physical processes in the brain are the result of love; have you ever considered that?

That would not explain why the loss of emotion occurred when the tissue was removed. And the symptoms he showed could be generated temporarily in healthy individuals by 'zapping' that region in some way so as to temporarily disable it. This is how science works. You devise further experiments to try and test the hypothesis.

The person could still remember what the emotions felt like, in some form, and he still valued, at some more 'intellectual' level, the company of his wife.

The hypothesis that that section of the brain is largely responsible for generating those emotional states is the simplest explanation, and it fits all the observations.

Quote:

If this is what science is, then I will be happy to have none of it.

Quote:

Taken as a whole, the accumulation of such observations is overwhelming evidence for the brain being the organ which provides the essential physical substrate for the complex chemical and neurological process which is consciousness and self-awareness.

No, it's evidence that there's some correlation between the mind and body. What that correlation is, scientists have no idea. This is not good science at all. It is making an observation, and then making a philosophical interpretation based on the observation. We know that physical processes happen at the same time as certain mental processes; this does not prove that this necessarily requires a brain.

We have made a lot of progress, and the experimental evidence and the explanatory power of the science continues to grow. IOW we have quite a lot of useful and explanatory ideas as to 'how the brain/mind works' - the 'mind' being what the 'brain' does.

Consider. People are seen to start changing their behaviour, personality, and/or other thought processes in sometimes bizarre ways, or lose some specific mental ability. We find they have a tumour in the brain. We remove it, carefully, and they return to normal, not always completely, but typically almost back to their normal selves. Is this not a significant further pointer as to the causal direction?

We simply have no need of the 'Dualism' hypothesis.

How would you explain in your terms how 'split-brain' patients behave, ie when the connection between the two hemispheres of the brain is cut, which is still a last-ditch but effective treatment for many forms of epileptic seizures? They behave as if the two halves have separate consciousnesses.

Dr. Dehaene is a neurological surgeon and research neurologist. Scientists do have an idea about the correlation between body and brain.

We're not talking about the body and the brain. We're talking about the correlation between mental states and physical states, or the mind and body. Whether the mind is the brain is the philosophical question here. Of course changes in the brain correspond with changes in the body.

Seriously, please stop trying to get involved in my discussions. You just continually make a fool of yourself.

Mental states and physical states is not body and brain? Who is the fool? I am asking you for evidence of mind sans body. And my post was about how changes in external stimuli are reflected by changes in the brain. The physical state of the brain is influenced by external stimuli and those physical changes can be measured. There is a lag in time between presenting the stimulus and the subject expressing opinion about same. That lag time is associated with neuron activity in the brain as the brain processes the stimulus. Show me one - just one - bit of evidence that demonstrates presence of a mind without a body.

Out of body experiences - implies a body.

Near death experiences - the person expresses them through their body.

Where is the evidence for mind sans body? Oh, right, in your bible.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

Who is the fool? I am asking you for evidence of mind sans body. And my post was about how changes in external stimuli are reflected by changes in the brain. The physical state of the brain is influenced by external stimuli and those physical changes can be measured. There is a lag in time between presenting the stimulus and the subject expressing opinion about same. That lag time is associated with neuron activity in the brain as the brain processes the stimulus. Show me one - just one - bit of evidence that demonstrates presence of a mind without a body.

No, your post was a half-hearted attempt at impressing everybody by making it appear as if you actually know something. But foolishly, you failed to recognize that your post was entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Now you want to use "give me evidence" as a red herring, allowing neutral onlookers to forget that you made a gaffe.

You are a total idiot. Please stay away from my discussions. You contaminate them.

Since you are now backed into a corner, is this the part where you start making "Yo mama" jokes?

So your contention here is that if evidence for something exists, then it is necessarily the case that we would have that evidence at our disposal? For instance, if there is DNA evidence that someone committed a murder, it necessarily follows that someone would have that evidence?

We don't always have evidence. In these cases we do not claim that anything exists, that would be argument from ignorance. Or if we claim anything, we call it hypothesis. And if this hypothesis can't be tested, we put it into some really low shelf.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Furthermore, what you said is false. Simply because the evidence exists does not mean that everyone is going to be persuaded by it. Proof is not the same thing as persuasion. So evidence for God is perfectly consistent with there being divergent beliefs.

Everyone rational will be persuaded by the evidence, that's what rationality and evidence is about. There are of course other ways of persuasion, like argumentum ad baculum. (like if you won't believe in my god, mad mob of my fellow villagers will lynch you and then you will suffer eternally in lake of fire)

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Moreover, many faiths believe in the same God but believe in different things about Him, in which case there is (by your logic) evidence for God but that we may be lacking in evidence of certain things about him.

Beliefs are not evidence for anything, including gods. Just visit a madhouse, full of people believing they're Napoleon Bonaparte or Cristobal Colón.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

So your arguments is not even worthy of being called "bad." A third grader can put together a better argument than this. You think Kelly won the debate with this material?

Hey, you're the one making arguments. I just point out where they are flawed. No wonder you don't like what I write. There's a saying, a crude bag needs a crude patch.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Note that Matt did not say that everyone is born a Christian--in fact, he would claim the opposite. He merely contested Kelly's unwarranted claim that everyone is born atheist. Let's assume that nobody is born a Christian; how does it follow that we are all born atheists?

How does it follow? It follows directly and logically. Unless babies are magically born believing in some deity, which they aren't, the only alternative is atheism. No matter how bad it sounds to you, even that is atheism. The good news for you is, that babies do not have yet critical thinking skills and thus their natural and primordial atheism will soon cease in religious families, in favor of this or that deity popular in the family.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Are you claiming that all theists are Christians or member of some religious faith?

[sarcasm] No, everyone knows that Christianity is not a religion, it's a way of life! [/sarcasm] Well, there are organized religions, non-organized religions and individual creeds, all of which is often theistic.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

LOL. Okay, so if my alarm clock is ringing at the same time I am drinking coffee, it must be the case that the alarm clock ringing is identical to my drinking of coffee. Brilliant argument.

Is that how science "works" according to you?

You don't really understand, do you? In this case we don't have two objects, be it alarm clock or coffee. We have just one object, which is a human brain. If two things go on simultaneously in human brain, chances are, that they are related. Further observation and scientific testing may confirm or not confirm that.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Ok. What inconsistent claims did Matt Slick make during the debate?

Uhm... what about that Christianity is true? I mean, which brand of it? Which is the one true Christian worldview? There are about 38 000 Christian denominations, some identical, some not. If you put an Evangelical, Catholic and Pentecostal next to each other, they will probably tell you different criteria for salvation. I'm tired of arguing with Christians who say "no, we're not them, we believe in all their crazy theology except of one point, which makes us different, so your argument does not apply, so Yahweh is real."

But what really got me, was one pastor on the web, who warned against spiritism. He said that all spiritistic voices talking to mediums are demons deceiving them. They can not possibly be ghosts of dead people, because Ecclectiastes from OT says that dead people are dead and don't do anything. So what is the point of Hell? Either Ecclestiastes is full of crap, or the damned souls are too dead to suffer anything, or the loving God specially resurrects them to spend eternity in torment, how nice of him.I don't take that seriously, but it's a fine example how religious people can find in their holy book anything that fits them.

On the other hand, scientists are unanimous as far as evidence goes. Which is very very far, because science is evidence-based. I don't say they're perfect, but they're the best we really have for now. Show me a faith-powered car and we'll test which god has the best P2 in watts, compared to P1 in whatever units there are for faith.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

So you'll only read up on Christians via biased atheist websites? Why not use regular Wikipedia? At least that is somewhat neutral. But the fact that you didn't even know who WLC was really undermines your credibility here.

Wikipedia includes WLC's opinions only marginally, by links on articles. I'd have to read through lots of unrelated historical stuff. And today already my head feels like frissbee. You can check for yourself if Rationalwiki does WLC justice. If it doesn't, tell me where, how and why.

Rational people do not want to be biased, they do many things to eliminate bias. Logic is one of them, then there are double-blind tests and so on. If someone's biased, his bias will be pointed out by other rational people. That's how it works and this is why I can safely read Rationalwiki and not Conservapedia, for example.

If you look at Conservapedia article about WLC, you will see it has zero informational value. It does not say anything about his arguments, only mentions them briefly, most of them not even linked anywhere. And it mentions his mighty victory over Dawkins by calling him coward. In comparison, Rationalwiki elaborates on WLC's arguments and disproves them by objective logic. What more can I wish for?

You are a total idiot. Please stay away from my discussions. You contaminate them.

Since you are now backed into a corner, is this the part where you start making "Yo mama" jokes?

We are getting close to my resorting to yo mama jokes. You dis me, I dis you. Keep it up and I'll go look for a couple of new jokes just for you.

I am not in a corner. Discussions with you are like beating one's head against a wall. I am not into self abuse, so I quit when it becomes obvious you refuse to actually pay attention to what anyone says. You might want to get your meds checked - again.

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

And typically, such text debates would degenerate into thousands upon thousands of words to the point where they are virtually unreadable.

He's not going to come here for that very reason.

And you know this because...? You some kinda mind reader?

From where I sit, it's just as likely that he doesn't make virtual appearances because he doesn't want to give up his home court advantage -which would make him no different than 1000s of other radio and television show hosts.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Just thought I should point out that cj mentioned and reminded me of a specific set of observations which strongly point to low-level brain states being the cause of conscious experiences. In that the direct neurological responses to applied stimuli definitely precede the conscious reporting of, or reaction to, the stimulus.

In your response, where you actually quoted that part of her post, you did not address that point, and simply dismissed her as being not worth talking to.

Just thought I should point out that cj mentioned and reminded me of a specific set of observations which strongly point to low-level brain states being the cause of conscious experiences. In that the direct neurological responses to applied stimuli definitely precede the conscious reporting of, or reaction to, the stimulus.

In your response, where you actually quoted that part of her post, you did not address that point, and simply dismissed her as being not worth talking to.

She's not worth talking to.

She's an elderly lady who has lived a useless existence her entire life and continues to live one today. You are the same.

Just thought I should point out that cj mentioned and reminded me of a specific set of observations which strongly point to low-level brain states being the cause of conscious experiences. In that the direct neurological responses to applied stimuli definitely precede the conscious reporting of, or reaction to, the stimulus.

In your response, where you actually quoted that part of her post, you did not address that point, and simply dismissed her as being not worth talking to.

She's not worth talking to.

She's an elderly lady who has lived a useless existence her entire life and continues to live one today. You are the same.

I see.

So rather that respond to a specific point which clearly is strong evidence against your PoV, you simply post an ad hominen, and then ignore her?

So your strategy is to ignore and denigrate anyone who posts significant evidence against you, which you can't refute?

How do you 'know' she has "lived a useless existence her entire life"??

Sorry to state the obvious, but isn't this the same frustrated philosophy major who always ends up just insulting people ?

Uhhh.... yeah? Apparently his nose got bloodied every time he visited us with what (he believed) was some sort of revolutionary argument in favor of theism and the various tenets of Christianity, and now he's 'repaying' us by hawking for Matt Smith... yet, at the same time, he's already convinced how such an encounter will turn out.

Given that his style of debate revolves around stating a few basic premises and hollow declarations, followed by an endless shower of flung monkey dung from him once those premises are debunked, is there really any cause to be surprised by what he posts?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

It's already clear why you don't want him in a 1 on 1 on a forum, where it's a level playing field...lol

Because he'll embarrass himself, like he did when people took his posted bunk TAG argument, and refuted it easily.

How is it a level playing field?

Because neither of us has any control.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

This is a forum run by atheists, the moderators of which are able to alter the content of any post as they see fit.

Why would you suspect that? Have they altered the content of any of your posts during any debates that alter the meaning of what points you are debating?

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Furthermore, you could work behind the scenes with other atheists in PM and about 10 different atheists could jump into the debate to help you out. That's a level playing field? HA!

I'm not sure what your fear is, here. That 'somehow' more information being exposed to a debator, or a database being at one's disposal being available during the course of a debate would be an unfair advantage?

Do you mean that apologists do not communicate, collaborate, and exchange data? Get real.

Stop making excuses for your boy.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

I've already defeated you.

No. You took your ball and went home when I flipped you on your head with your fallacy that's a dead end.

Your ad hoc reasoning on works with gullible people, who convince themselves that something is 'true'.

It's the same trick with Astrology and Snake Oil.

You can thump all day long that your Modal Argument is a 'proof' that a god necessarily exists, and that it makes you the winner, but it does nothing of the sort.

Personally asserting and certifying that it is 'logical' means nothing. Our cerebral concepts that we call 'logic' are articulated with narratives to illustrate what we know of the mechanics of the universe that we has thus far been able to detect, and are aware of.

You have never witnessed a universe forming. Neither has anyone else, so (ipso facto) it follows completely 'logically' that you cannot possibly certify unequivocally that this universe was created by a god. No human is qualified to make that claim.

Whether or not there is sufficient understanding, or whether we have enough information, or even the ability to detect all the factors at play in the mechanics of reality, remains to be seen.

You might like to pretend that you are correct, and know enough, and are qualified to conclude that the way you think the universe (and us) were formed, but it's not enough for millions of other people, which makes your ideas, theories pretty impotent.

Atheism, and specifically 'Antitheism' against fundamentalists is on the rise, and even more noteworthy, is the decline of theists who are willing to live strictly according to scripture, which even furthers my point about how impotent the 'arguments' for a god are.

You can prop up apologists all day long, but it doesn't mean jack. Matt Slick is a nobody.

Even guys like William Lane Craig are a 'nobody' to take seriously. What percentage of the population (even in America) knows about WLC, as compared to Christopher Hitchens?

That's the problem with ignorant Christian Americans. They think the world revolves around them.

Even Platinga is ignorant enough to claim that 90% of the world's population are theists. And fanboys like you want to talk about how 'sophisticated' these philosophers are?

Don't make me laugh.

Platinga is a total deluded navel gazing moron.

He posits that it seems to him that he can 'conceive' that he can 'exist' when his body doesn't, and that if he can 'conceive' of 'himself' in a beetle body, then it means that 'he' is more than 'his' body.

This is 'sophisticated' ???

I know barflies with more alcohol in their veins than blood who express more cogent thoughts...

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Kelly said "There is no evidence for God." Matt Slick asked, "How do you know that?" It was a perfectly legitimate question.

Sure, except that there isn't any evidence, except the stories in the bible. It's an equivocation to classify them as 'evidence', when it's merely conjecture derived from folklore many decades after the supposed events took place. It would be entirely reasonable, and justified to be skeptical and suspect of those kinds of reports, and label that 'rumour' and 'hearsay'.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Kelly said "People are born atheists." Matt Slick asked, "How do you know that?" It was a perfectly legitimate question.

Except that babies are born oblivious and ignorant to the universe, which is why the incessant 'Why is the sky blue?' or 'Where do babies come from?' or 'Why is my goldfish floating upside down?' come from. It's only that he's being obtuse, and trying to shift the burden to the atheist. Platinga posits that it's more 'reasonable' to conclude that because there are so many theists, that it's part of human epistimic nature to believe in god, and as he puts it 'hard wired' into us.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Slick was merely pointing out that Kelly had nothing to offer but unwarranted assumptions and subjectivity...

Neither does Platinga, so your point is moot. The difference is merely that Kelly wasn't careful enough with her words to frame it as 'It seems to me that...', which is how apologists appear to avoid the 'trap'. It's just 'posturing'. Platinga is just throwing his 'It seems to me..." which is just his way of trying to overcome the 'correlation does not equal causation' fallacy.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

It is not an "obvious fact" that everyone is born atheist

Not in your mind. But it is in mine. Your opinion is not sufficient to trump mine, if we're merely offering opinions. Considering I studied psychology in college, while you were navel gazing, I'll go with mine.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

we may have an inherent predisposition towards God belief--you really do not know.

Neither do you, or Matt Slick, or Platinga.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

Matt's argument is that the God issue is not scientific at all...

That's patently stupid. It's a claimed scientific explanation for the how the universe, and life on earth formed. That's not convincing enough for the scientific minded, and since we're ruled by what science affords us, it'll keep providing us with more facts about the universe than any church can. That's why they built the Large Hadron Collider. If some of the suspicions of scientists turn out to be correct, or turn up things that weren't even theorized, it'll be another giant nail in the coffin of theism. Sucks to be bound by legends written by people who never could have anticipated how much about the cosmos and particles we could decipher. The ad nauseum "There are things that we will never know" axiom of bible thumpers is just white noise to millions of people. You are the ones who are like the heretics now...lol

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

...and requires a different criteria by which one judges whether it's true that he exists

Special pleading fallacy.

Mr_Metaphysics wrote:

You really don't seem to be anymore sophisticated than she is

I've demonstrated that Platinga sounds like a drunk, so STFU.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris

One thing I've learned in science is that it's backwards to try and determine the pass/failure criteria after the observation.

So if I'm going to debate a theist, then I will insist on that theist publicly providing clear conditions under which he/she will admit that God probably does not exist. The theist must do this before the debate. In turn, I will publicly provide clear conditions under which I will admit that God probably does exist. (In fact, I have already done so on my blog). If the theist can't do this, then I do not believe he/she is sufficiently open-minded to honestly consider and analyze the arguments in a reasonably objective fashion.

So if Matt Slick ever publicly announces clear criteria under which he will admit God probably does not exist, I'll give him a call.

Come to think of it, please let me know if ANY theist ever makes such an announcement. I've yet to hear one.

One thing I've learned in science is that it's backwards to try and determine the pass/failure criteria after the observation.

So if I'm going to debate a theist, then I will insist on that theist publicly providing clear conditions under which he/she will admit that God probably does not exist. The theist must do this before the debate. In turn, I will publicly provide clear conditions under which I will admit that God probably does exist. (In fact, I have already done so on my blog). If the theist can't do this, then I do not believe he/she is sufficiently open-minded to honestly consider and analyze the arguments in a reasonably objective fashion.

So if Matt Slick ever publicly announces clear criteria under which he will admit God probably does not exist, I'll give him a call.

Come to think of it, please let me know if ANY theist ever makes such an announcement. I've yet to hear one.

That is a trap, but a very clever one, at that. I can't think of many people, atheist OR theist, that will admit anything to the contrary of their beliefs simply because they lost a debate, unless it's a tongue-in-cheek remark.

And with that, Doucheknuckle Supreme™ is banhammered. I am a little sad to see him go, as his bimonthly flailing of arms and fist-wringing does make for cheap amusement, but then, I can hardly approve of his attacking relatively uninvolved RRSers for the horrific, unforgivable crime of making a counterargument (as with CJ.) or heavily involved, respected members attempting to debunk his crap (Bobspence1.)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

I can't think of many people, atheist OR theist, that will admit anything to the contrary of their beliefs simply because they lost a debate, unless it's a tongue-in-cheek remark.

That's exactly the problem with debates. We need more "seek the truth" and less "buff up my side through any means possible."

And on the contrary, I myself have changed my beliefs in the course of debates. Off the top of my head, I can recall changing my views on capital punishment, economics, achohol-based rape (where consent is void due to intoxication), and utilitarianism due to formal debates and informal debate-like discussions.

a bloke goes fishing on Wallis Lake for the weekend and misses all the fun. I was wondering why Mr Met appeared banned on other threads. Is this the reason or is there some other instance of him spitting the dummy I've not seen?

I endlessly fail to see why christians insist the blurry bits of consciousness are proof of soul or suggest the brain runs on 'love' as Mr Met suggests here. Why are god people so boned up on oxytocin? Does it feel stronger to them, perhaps?

As for debating on the spot with no reference to facts, well. Christianity specialises in that...

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck